"The controversy between the Catholic nations and the court of Rome
in regard to the limits of the right of jurisdiction of the State
and of the spiritual authority of the Church goes back to an early
date. The clergy, who in the Middle Ages possessed both moral and
intellectual supremacy, held España in perpetual tutelage; and so
greatly abused their power that the journals of the early Cortes
record numerous petitions, constantly set aside, now in regard to
ecclesiastical amortization, now about the creation of the religious
orders; exemptions and privileges for the clergy, multiplication of
benefices, and concessions to foreigners; excessive imposts claimed in
Roma for favors and dispensations; and innumerable abuses introduced
in the discipline of the Spanish church. Until the clamor of battle
ceased and the national unity was realized, the sovereigns did not
preoccupy themselves with recovering the prerogatives of the royal
power, and the Catholic monarchs [i.e., Fernando and Isabel] were the
first who undertook to maintain with care the so-called regalías [131]
[i.e., prerogatives] of the crown." [From that time many controversies
arose between the courts of Madrid and Rome, and even their diplomatic
intercourse ceased entirely at times. A concordat was formed in 1737,]
"which, instead of settling the pending disputes, deferred them
until January 11, 1753, at which time the royal right of patronage
was decided in favor of the kings of España; and questions referring
to pensions and other claims of the Roman curia were settled by the
conveyance of 23,066,660 reals, which the Marqués de la Ensenada
delivered in Roma before the concordat was signed. Carlos III, who as
king of the two Sicilies had had a similar controversy with the court
of Roma, and had in 1741 secured the solemnization of a concordat,
found the principal disputes terminated in España; but he could not
prevent time and circumstances from originating others, which were
settled in due time." [With this controversy between Church and State,
the Jesuits were necessarily as well as of choice involved. "During
two centuries, and under different aspects, two diverse principles
came into open opposition: the principle of authority, essential
in the Catholic Church, which was the banner of the Society of
Jesus; and the principle of rebellion against the past, proclaimed
by Protestantism, converted afterward into the encyclopedistic
philosophy, and still later taking the form of a social, religious,
and political disintegration. To the propaganda of false ideas which
was causing so much corruption among the youth, the Society of Jesus
opposed solid and Christian education, the defense of its doctrine,
and the preaching and example of its members." Carlos III had come
from Italy with a dislike to the Jesuits, and with various opinions
which were more radical than those then current in España; and the
influence of French philosophy and political thought in that country
(see note 4, ante, pp. 25-27) enabled him to secure advisers who were
willing to second his ideas--although at first he made the mistake
of appointing too many foreigners in his cabinet. The king and his
ministers formed plans of reform for the country which have made
Danvila call him "the first revolutionary monarch of España." It
became evident that these plans could not be made effectual unless
the influence of the Jesuits against them could be neutralized. That
order had been expelled from Portugal and all her dominions, by decree
of January 12, 1759; and it was suppressed in France by Louis XV in
November, 1764. Permission to settle in Spain and Naples was denied to
the French exiles by Carlos III. In March, 1766, a popular uprising
took place in Madrid, directed against one of Carlos III's ministers
(Leopold de Gregorio, Marqués de Squilace, a Sicilian by birth) who,
besides the prejudice against him as a foreigner, had made himself
unpopular by certain sumptuary regulations; it resulted in his
banishment from Spain. Soon afterward, the king found it necessary
to make changes in his ministry. The presidency of the Council of
Castilla was conferred upon Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, Conde de
Aranda, an Aragonese noble; and five new places therein were created,
making twelve in all. All these councilors were Spaniards, and five
of them were archbishops and bishops. [132] "After the Madrid riot,
everywhere resounded complaints against the court and its nobles,
the priests and the friars, and especially against the Jesuits,"
the last-named being accused by many of having incited the riot. "The
appointment of Aranda was praised, as taking from an ecclesiastic the
custody of the royal prerogatives." The disturbance quieted, the royal
Council took measures to ascertain, through a secret investigation,
the causes of this uprising; and their conclusion is thus stated in
a letter sent by order of the king to the government of Naples, June
23, 1767:] "The result of all [the evidence] was, that the Jesuits
were either the principal or the only inciters [of the riot]; they
stirred up the flames on every side, roused aversion in the minds of
all classes of people, and detached them from their affection and
subordination to the government. The Jesuits printed and scattered
about papers and writings that were seditious, and opposed to the
royal authority and to the sovereignty and its legitimate rights; they
preached against Portugal and France in their sermons to the public,
and in the parlors of the nunneries, insinuating themselves to confess
and direct the nuns without authority and against the wills of the
superiors of the convents; even in the cloisters of the religious
women, the Jesuits instilled, by their lectures and conversations,
pernicious ideas and unworthy suspicions against the religious belief
of the king and his ministers; and both before and after the tumult
they threatened calamities and tragedies. They complained of all the
decrees that were issued, on account of the [government] offices and
dignities not devolving on their partisans and the followers of their
school; they murmured against all the measures of the government,
because they had no part in these, as being opposed to their ideas and
their advantage. Their perverse [ideas of] moral practice in España
and the Indias, the laxity of their morals, their sordid commerce,
their intrigues, their cunning schemes, and, finally, everything that
has been written or published by those whom the Society fancies to
be its rivals and enemies: all these have been verified, and found
convincing, with facts and instances of the present time (and which
cannot be denied), without the necessity of resorting to the many and
enormous excesses of former times or of foreign countries. [133] Their
hatred to the house of Bourbon, and their aversion to the 'family
compact,' [134] their partiality to the English, and their desire
that the latter should subdue France; the greater satisfaction and
confidence which they feel toward Protestant princes, preferring these
to the Catholics; and other designs of theirs that are abominable,
and contrary to the spirit of religion, of honor, and of humanity:
these have been proved to us by many and irrefutable means, which their
own acts and writings have furnished to us. Time and paper would fail
me if I tried to specify to your Excellency the facts and proofs of
the many charges which have accumulated against them." [Finally--as a
result partly of this investigation, and partly of the growing alarm
and distrust felt against the Jesuits, especially as they were securing
new privileges from the Holy See--Carlos III issued decrees dated at
El Pardo, February 27, 1767, for the banishment of the Jesuits from
Spain and the Indias. "The instructions for the measures to be taken
by the persons commissioned to carry out the banishment of the Jesuits
in España and the Indias, and to take possession of their goods and
estates; [135] the information as to their colleges, residences,
and missions in the Western Indias, the Filipinas islands, and the
kingdoms of the Indias; and the circular letter of Conde de Aranda
to the viceroys and governors of the Indias providing for what they
might decide for themselves, without asking any questions: this bears
the date of March 1." On March 12 this decision was known in Rome;
and four days later despatches from Aranda gave fuller details, and
included a copy of a royal decree which charged him to "display to
the other religious orders the confidence, satisfaction, and esteem
which they merited for their fidelity and doctrine, their observance
of the monastic life, their exemplary service of the Church, their
creditable instruction, and their withdrawal from the affairs of
government as being alien to and remote from the ascetic and monastic
life." On March 20, Aranda determined to appoint April 3 as the date on
which this expulsion of the Jesuits should go into effect; and on the
thirty-first Carlos III wrote a letter to Pope Clement XIII, stating
that he found it necessary to expel the Jesuits from his dominions, and
would send them to the States of the Church, to be under the direction
of his Holiness as the father of the faithful. The Spanish ambassador
at Rome, to whom this letter was sent for delivery to the pope,
was also notified that all the expelled Jesuits would be pensioned,
as long as they remained outside of the Spanish territories, at the
following rate: to the ordained priests, 100 pesos annually; to the
laymen, 90 pesos; and to all, a half-year's salary in advance. [136]
The pope was overcome with grief at this news, and in reply (April 16)
remonstrated with the king against this measure, protesting that the
Jesuit order was innocent of disloyal or evil acts, and urging the king
to suspend the execution of the decrees against them. This of course
had no effect, and the pope refused to receive the banished Jesuits
into his territory, hoping thus to compel Carlos to take other steps;
but the latter sent the exiles to Corsica instead. On January 23, 1776,
Pius VI directed the nuncios in the Catholic countries to enforce the
law of silence in regard to the extinction of the Jesuit order--a
measure especially directed against the publication of libels and
satires, which at that time abounded in the larger cities, and were
often indecent and infamous. In that year, also, harmony was restored
between the Holy See and the Catholic powers.]
[The above general account of the causes leading to the expulsion of
the Jesuits from the Spanish domains is obtained from various places
in the account furnished by Danvila y Collado in his Reinado de Carlos
III, t. ii, iii, to which the reader is referred as being probably
the most full, accurate, and scholarly account now available of this
important historical episode. He uses a great variety of material,
obtained largely from the original documents in the Spanish archives,
which he cites directly (and often in full), with careful references to
his sources; and, although his sympathies are with the Jesuit order,
which he thinks was unjustly maligned, he is evidently too thorough a
scholar to suppress or distort the facts in the case. The following
outline of his work in regard to this subject will give the reader
an idea of his thoroughness therein, and of the places where one may
find special information on various aspects of the subject. Tomo ii:
Chapter v, "Controversies with Roma," relates those which occurred
under Carlos III over the royal prerogatives, the measures for
canonizing the venerable Palafox, [137] ecclesiastical amortization,
the banishment of the inquisitor-general by the king, the expulsion
of the Jesuits, and other burning questions of that time. Chapter
vi treats, with much fulness of detail, of the Madrid uprising of
1766, with its causes and effects. Chapters vii-ix form a history
of the Jesuit order from its first establishment to 1766. Tomo iii:
Chapter i, "Causes of the expulsion;" chapter ii, "The Execution
of the expulsion;" chapter iii, "The monitory decree of Parma,"
a brief issued by Clement XIII on January 30, 1768, which attempted
to assert the temporal power of the pope; [138] chapter iv, "Origin
of the extinction of the Society of Jesus," showing how the plan
for this measure was initiated by France, and how the other powers
rapidly fell into line for her support; chapter v, "The election
of Clement XIV," relating the important part played therein by the
question of suppressing the Jesuit order, and the political scheming
by the various powers interested; chapters vi-viii, "Extinction of
the Society of Jesus;" chapter ix, "Consequences of the extinction;"
chapter x, "Rehabilitation of the Society of Jesus," which ends with
the brief of Leo XIII (July 13, 1886) abrogating that by which Clement
XIV put an end (July 21, 1773) to the Jesuit order.]
[In the appendix to tomo iii are various important documents, presented
in full, as follows: Official report to Carlos III of the proceedings
on April 30, 1767, of the Council committee [Consejo extraordinario]
which advised the expulsion of the Jesuits, in regard to the pope's
remonstrance against that measure. Another letter of remonstrance
from the pope, May 6, 1767; and the king's brief and resolute reply
thereto, June 2 of same year. Letter written (June 23) by one of the
Spanish ministers, Manuel de Roda, stating "the reasons which his
Majesty has had for decreeing the expulsion." Another report of the
Council committee, dated November 30, 1767, long and interesting,
on the proposal made to Spain by Portugal for concerted action by
the powers to secure the extinction of the Society. A report from
the full session of the Council, dated March 21, 1767, recommending
the extinction of the order; the signatures include those of the
archbishops and bishops. [139] "Brief statement of the infractions
of law committed by the Jesuits, which was sent to Roma for delivery
to the pope;" [140] it was drawn up, in 1769, by José Moñino, Conde
de Floridablanca, another of the Spanish ministers.]
[In Crétineau-Joly's Histoire de la Compagnie de Jésus, volume v is
devoted to the expulsion of the Jesuits successively from Portugal,
France, Spain, and other countries, and the results of that measure. In
regard to Spain, see pp. 236-254. We present here the leading points
of interest therein. According to Crétineau-Joly, Carlos III was
"a prince who was religious and able, upright and enlightened, but
impetuous and obstinate; he had most of the qualities which promote
the welfare of peoples. His character entirely accorded with that
of his subjects; like them, he pushed to the utmost degree family
spirit and the honor of his name. At Naples, as well as at Madrid,
Carlos III always showed himself devoted to the Society of Jesus." In
the uprising at Madrid in March, 1766, the popular irritation made
the situation exceedingly dangerous, "when the Jesuits, all-powerful
over the minds of the people, flung themselves into the mêlée and
succeeded in appeasing the tumult. The people of Madrid gave way
to the entreaties and threats of the fathers; but, in dispersing
they undertook to show their affection for the latter; and from all
sides the cry of 'Long live the Jesuits!' resounded in the pacified
city. Carlos III, humiliated at having taken flight [to Aranjuez],
and perhaps still more humiliated at owing the tranquillity of his
capital to some priests, returned to the city. He was received with
joy; but he had around him men who, affiliated with Choiseul and the
party of [French] philosophy, felt it necessary to mingle poison with
the facts. The Marquis de Squillaci was replaced in the ministry by
the Count d'Aranda, and, after a long time, the Spanish diplomat made
common cause with the Encyclopedists." "The Duke of Alva, a former
minister of Fernando VI, shared his ideas, and became the apostle
of innovations, and the exciter of hatred against the Jesuits. [141]
Portugal and France had just expelled them; Alva and Aranda dared not
remain behind. The pretext of the revolt at Madrid for the cloaks and
broad hats [142] had produced the effect which was to be expected;
it inspired the king with suspicions of the Jesuits. The prince could
not explain to himself the fact that there, where the majesty of the
sovereign had been defied, the moral authority of the Jesuits had so
easily overcome the popular fury. The people had massacred his Walloon
guards, and accepted the intervention of the fathers of the [Jesuit]
Institute. This mystery, to which the contact of the disciples of
St. Ignatius with all classes of people so easily supplied the key,
was exaggerated and distorted for the ear of Carlos III. The king was
favorable to the Society of Jesus, but [his ministers] succeeded in
rendering him indifferent to it; then one day, a net woven long before
wrapped the Society in its meshes." "Those who favor the destruction
of the Order of Jesus, and the partisans of that same order, while
they agree entirely as to the result, differ essentially in regard
to the causes. The former claim that the 'hat insurrection' opened
the king's eyes, and made him suspect that this society of priests
aspired to dethrone their protector, or at least to make themselves
masters of the Spanish colonies. The others affirm that Aranda was
only the stone-setter [metteur en oeuvre] of a plot organized in
Paris. This plot, they say, had for its foundation the pride of a
son who was unwilling to have to blush for his mother." [143] Several
Protestant writers are cited to show that the king's decision to expel
the Jesuits was caused mainly by his resentment at the Madrid uprising
(which he was made to believe was incited by the Jesuits), and at the
statements made in a pretended letter by Ricci, the Jesuit general--a
letter which the French minister, Duke de Choiseul, was accused
of fabricating--to the effect "that he had succeeded in collecting
documents which proved incontestably that Carlos III was the child
of adultery; this absurd invention made such an impression upon the
king that he allowed the order for the expulsion of the Jesuits to be
wrested from him." "This fact is confirmed by other contemporaneous
testimony, and by the documents of the Society of Jesus." "The order
is not touched anywhere [in the proceedings of the Council]; the
discipline or the morals of the Jesuits are never incriminated." "The
suppositions which cause the decision of the Council extraordinary are
not proved; they are not even expressed." "All that the government
of Fernando VII afterward admitted was, that 'the Society of Jesus
was expelled forever, in virtue of a measure wrested by most crafty
and unrighteous underhand dealings from his magnanimous and pious
grandfather Carlos III.'" "The pragmatic sanction is as reserved as
the sentence of the Council extraordinary; it throws no light on
the nature of the crimes imputed to the Jesuits." "The mandate of
the king was pitiless; the authorities, both military and civil,
conformed with it, without understanding it. There were at that
time unspeakable sufferings, bitter regrets, and cruel outrages to
humanity. It was directed against six thousand Jesuits scattered in
Spain and the New World; they were carried away by force, insulted,
confined, and crowded on the decks of vessels. They were devoted to
apostasy or to misery; they were surprised in their houses, despoiled
of their property, their books, and their correspondence; they were
torn from their colleges or their missions. Young or old, well or sick,
all were obliged to submit to an ostracism of which no one had the
secret. They departed for an unknown exile; under threats and insults,
not one let a complaint escape him. In their most private papers there
was never found a line which could make them suspected of any plot."]